The role of ministers: give them more personality instead of merely being modifiers

[seattle]

I don't know what's more likely to happen: someone uncovering the recipe for Coca Cola or someone being able to fully explain the role of the player in HoI. "Guiding spirit of the nation" might be the closest we'll ever come.
Minsters in the current HoI games were a neat gimmick, but they rather felt like cheap gimmicks. DH probably did the best job in giving them more personality. Himmler for instance had half a dozen attributes and no other minister had the exact same attributes. At least the major nations should have unique ministers (for the famous ones at least).
I don't like having a "barking buffoon" in my cabinet that a dozen other nations also have. I want my Hermann Goering to be special. I want him to be fleshed out, so he's like no other. Let's take Goering and see what we can do with him:
- Great organizer: airforce construction and organization bonus
- Overpowering ego: judgement penalty (like underestimating the enemy while overestimating his forces). Could be simulated by wrong intel, fighting efficiency penalty...
- Drug dependency (hooked on painkillers since being wounded earlier): any ideas?

It basically comes down to making ministers more lively and charismatic. Crusader Kings 2 wouldn't be fun without the hillarious and impactful personalities.

It never felt right in HoI to have Hitler as the nation's leader and not having any meaningful effect on the game! Having Hitler should make your life more difficult when playing Germany. Unsuccessfully executed battle plans could fire events like "Hitler wants to sack leader x: a) leader retires, b) suffer 3% dissent".
Or some random lunacy like: ME-263 as fighter or blitz bomber, wasting precious resources on megalomanic secret weapons and "mice" are some of the headaches a Hitler in power would cause you. I for one would love having to make the best out of a Hitler-situation. In one game I would simply cave in and do everything he demands and see if I can still win the war. In the next game I'd oppose him and so on.

What do you think? Minister fine as they are or do you want "real" people?

 

[aprof]

In many ways I agree. When you have choices to replace a minister among three Resource Industrialists or Great Compromisers with the exact same stats, then you really have no choice. There should be some mechanic to vary stats among the ministers - even if it results in ahistorical stats for some ministers. There also should be a mechanic that would insure that your choices result in some varied choices among the archetypes. When you have three or four choices for any particular minister, you should have three or four different archetypes - your Naval Ministers shouldn't all be Battleship Proponents.

However, I don't think every possible minister can have their own unique stats, that would be a daunting project for anyone whether dev or a dedicated beta. The famous/historical (extreme?) choices, as in your example of Himmler, Goering et al. could easily have unique stats, but most nations will need to rely on the 'standard' set of stats with the mechanic removing a stat, adjusting percent of the stat, adding a rare stat each game. Perhaps one game 'Bomber' Harris has a bonus to strategic bombing +5%, tactical bombing -1% and the next those may be reversed. Such variation may make choosing ministers something to pay attention to, rather than slotting in the same one each game.

 

[Art1985]

NO!! Dont't turn this game in "Crusader Kings 2"!!! I don't want to play with characters and i hate Crusader Kings because there charecters playing main role in gameplay.

 

[FOARP]

I'd really like to see the ministers in HOI4 be more like CKII characters - they should develop over the course of the game, you should have reasons for choosing ones with negative characteristics (e.g., because they are more loyal or still believe in victory), revolts should be possible.

NO!! Dont't turn this game in "Crusader Kings 2"!!! I don't want to play with characters and i hate Crusader Kings because there charecters playing main role in gameplay.

No sooner had I posted . . . . guess what, CKII is the most popular game Paradox have ever released, so I guess not that many people would agree with you. The characters actually make the game fun to play, because it's from them that the game creates a narrative. I don't want the religious/family/personal attitude elements of the CKII characters, but the way in which they develop, and the way in which the game forces you to make hard choices, would greatly improve HOI4.

At the moment in HOI3, you simply chose the best ministers and only replace them if they die. You simply won't pick bad ministers. Ministers don't lose/gain traits. Is this historical? Obviously not - Germany is the obvious example, Hitler was constantly replacing his ministers because he no longer trusted them or they no longer believed in victory.

 

[Thure]

NO!! Dont't turn this game in "Crusader Kings 2"!!! I don't want to play with characters and i hate Crusader Kings because there charecters playing main role in gameplay.

Because some ministers have unique bonuses and maluses m ake the game like CK? :blink:

 

[vonhavoc]

Having read Guderian's and Manstein's books it's really hard to find many redeeming features for Göring

Also, if such personal traits were to be put in, no one would ever be using people like Jodl, Keitel (the W. not B.), Kluge or other wastes of OOB space.

I do like the idea however, as a novelty. And I'm pretty sure mods could easily do this already with HoI3, at least I remember seeing all manner of medals on the leaders in Black Ice. Why not personal traits as well

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I like it. The total deteriorating mental and trust situation with Hitler, and absolutely mind-bogglingly inept decisions made by some leaders even with all the necessary intel are so plentiful in the history of WW2, that stupidity has to be factored in. Or the tendency to bury one's head in the sand.

 

[seattle]

Having read Guderian's and Manstein's books it's really hard to find many redeeming features for Göring

Also, if such personal traits were to be put in, no one would ever be using people like Jodl, Keitel (the W. not B.), Kluge or other wastes of OOB space.

I do like the idea however, as a novelty. And I'm pretty sure mods could easily do this already with HoI3, at least I remember seeing all manner of medals on the leaders in Black Ice. Why not personal traits as well

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I like it. The total deteriorating mental and trust situation with Hitler, and absolutely mind-bogglingly inept decisions made by some leaders even with all the necessary intel are so plentiful in the history of WW2, that stupidity has to be factored in. Or the tendency to bury one's head in the sand.

Well, just as FOARP already pointed out, there can be many reasons to pick bad ministers. You just have to implement the attribute "loyalty" and there you go. Why should Hitler ever pick Keitel over Guderian if not for perceived loyalty? Everything one needs to know about Keitel is in his nick name "Lakeitel" (a play on his name and the German word for "lackey").
Same mechanism as I proposed for generals earlier in form of the seniority principle. Why promote the lesser general if not for seniority?
PDS would have to implement such attributes obviously. Being that seniority and loyalty did play major roles in the war, I see no reason why they wouldn't implement them. It's the same logic that stands behind Stalin's purges.

 

[vonhavoc]

Well, just as FOARP already pointed out, there can be many reasons to pick bad ministers. You just have to implement the attribute "loyalty" and there you go. Why should Hitler ever pick Keitel over Guderian if not for perceived loyalty? Everything one needs to know about Keitel is in his nick name "Lakeitel" (a play on his name and the German word for "lackey").
Same mechanism as I proposed for generals earlier in form of the seniority principle. Why promote the lesser general if not for seniority?
PDS would have to implement such attributes obviously. Being that seniority and loyalty did play major roles in the war, I see no reason why they wouldn't implement them. It's the same logic that stands behind Stalin's purges.

Except that in the end, people are not really roleplaying Hitler in the example of Germany. They are playing the country and aiming to win the war. Thus all this sycophancy to a demented leader really would be counter productive to that end.

And I really would make a clear distinction between loyalty and sycophancy, as the latter is absolutely blind (by choice or by lack of perspective) to the faults of the leader. Loyal people would strive to bring the leader on the right course if at all possible. In this we have perfect examples provided by you: Keitel the sycophant and Guderian the loyal officer. Thank you for the Keitel reference, I had a chuckle with it!

If this loyalty would be indeed implemented in a way that supporting Hitler would be somehow be (no idea how) profitable, there should also an option for the player to remove Hitler and install a ruler who suits his playstyle.

Surely this is not a Hitler simulator, or a simulator of frustrated generals being micro-managed to death by a power hungry demagogue. In that case half the things in the game would not be accessible to the player as they would be controlled by other arms and/or Hitler himself.

 

[FOARP]

Except that in the end, people are not really roleplaying Hitler in the example of Germany. They are playing the country and aiming to win the war. Thus all this sycophancy to a demented leader really would be counter productive to that end.

Quite a few ministers and military leaders wanted to end the war, or at the very least kill off Hitler. Very obviously putting those guys in positions where they can do exactly that should have negative consequences. Say what you like about Hitler, but the to the German people he was almost a god-figure.

 

[Kovax]

A few "workable" ways to differentiate between similar ministers would be to assign different "degrees" of a trait. One might provide a +5% bonus to something, and a -2% malus to another, while a "similar" minister might give only a 3% bonus to the first stat and no malus. If you want a minister with the higher first trait, you have to deal with the second trait. Loyalty could be simulated by both political drift and a modifier to dissent: pick a minister with ideas contrary to those of your party and you'll get a small amount of popularity and ideological drift toward another faction (the latter part having no effect on faction members), and/or a small dissent penalty (as in 0.1%), which would need to be countered by increasing consumer goods production slightly, or with a leader who provides a reduction in dissent. Some of the more "powerful" ministers with good effects could be "toned down" with the introduction of such offsetting drawbacks. Your choice: greater skill but lower loyalty, or greater loyalty but less skill. Those traits might even be boosted or reduced randomly by a point or two over the course of the game (perhaps an annual event with a 10% chance of increasing and a 10% chance of decreasing one stat by one point).

I agree that having 4 different choices for an office, all with identical stats, does nothing for gameplay and is extremely unrealistic.

 

[seattle]

Except that in the end, people are not really roleplaying Hitler in the example of Germany. They are playing the country and aiming to win the war. Thus all this sycophancy to a demented leader really would be counter productive to that end.

Any sort of historical limitation is counter-productive to the player's success really. But why should the player be able to do cherry-picking? Why should you have all the benefits (like super-duper U-Boats doctrines) without having to deal with the historical problems of Germany for instance?
Further more, how would you get an a.i.-controlled Germany to behave historically? If the game turns out to feature a bunch of nations that all try to find the best solution to every problem, then we'd have a pretty ahistorical experience.

#loyalty vs. sycophancy
You can merge both into "loyalty" from 1 (probably backstabbing you as we speak) to 10 (Goebbels, Keitel). Somewhere from 8-10 a loyal leader can be considered a sycophant. Guderian and Manstein would be a 6 maybe (will give you sh*t, but never participate in a coup).

 

[vonhavoc]

Quite a few ministers and military leaders wanted to end the war, or at the very least kill off Hitler. Very obviously putting those guys in positions where they can do exactly that should have negative consequences. Say what you like about Hitler, but the to the German people he was almost a god-figure.

I am not saying loyalty has no place in the matter. One just must make difference between the kinds of loyalty there are. There are more shades of grey between full-fledged nazism and wanting to off Hitler.

Naturally I'm more than aware of the July 20th plot and other such things. I'm merely saying, that people who do not wish to follow in the footsteps of the 3rd Reich, and instead wish to win the war, should have the option of either having a sane Hitler or replacing him. With a looney Hitler and his cohorts dictating (hehe) the course, failure is the only option.

Any sort of historical limitation is counter-productive to the player's success really. But why should the player be able to do cherry-picking? Why should you have all the benefits (like super-duper U-Boats doctrines) without having to deal with the historical problems of Germany for instance?
Further more, how would you get an a.i.-controlled Germany to behave historically? If the game turns out to feature a bunch of nations that all try to find the best solution to every problem, then we'd have a pretty ahistorical experience.

But the only point of the game is to make something ahistorical. If the game was destined to end always the same way history went, no one would play it. In fact, I could just watch some historical documentaries instead. Not from Nat Geo or History channel though...

 

[seattle]

But the only point of the game is to make something ahistorical. If the game was destined to end always the same way history went, no one would play it. In fact, I could just watch some historical documentaries instead. Not from Nat Geo or History channel though...

That's not what anyone means. It would however add to the game experience and challenge if you would have to deal with the historical character traits. A basic version of that is already in the game with the minister modifiers and leader skills and traits.
I'd simply like a more detailed level of the current system. Your argument isn't valid unless you want to do away entirely with the current system and make every nation generic without any sort of national traits.

 

[vonhavoc]

That's not what anyone means. It would however add to the game experience and challenge if you would have to deal with the historical character traits. A basic version of that is already in the game with the minister modifiers and leader skills and traits.
I'd simply like a more detailed level of the current system. Your argument isn't valid unless you want to do away entirely with the current system and make every nation generic without any sort of national traits.

By tying the player to Hitler's folly and his inept cronies by forcing this by some loyalty system one would handicap one pretty much. And limit the player's options.

If the player guides Germany, the choice of leader's should be player's, not Hitler's. And even having Hitler would not be the first choice for many. I'd also argue against having a crazy Hitler as german national trait insofar as this would lock cabinet positions and high ranking officer positions in some predetermined rut. Also, this would mean that whenever any offensive is being planned, the AI Hitler would intervene, make you wait random amount of time and absolutely prevent any way of mobile defensive war.

 

[fabius]

I'd really like to see the ministers in HOI4 be more like CKII characters - they should develop over the course of the game, you should have reasons for choosing ones with negative characteristics (e.g., because they are more loyal or still believe in victory), revolts should be possible.



No sooner had I posted . . . . guess what, CKII is the most popular game Paradox have ever released, so I guess not that many people would agree with you. The characters actually make the game fun to play, because it's from them that the game creates a narrative. I don't want the religious/family/personal attitude elements of the CKII characters, but the way in which they develop, and the way in which the game forces you to make hard choices, would greatly improve HOI4.

At the moment in HOI3, you simply chose the best ministers and only replace them if they die. You simply won't pick bad ministers. Ministers don't lose/gain traits. Is this historical? Obviously not - Germany is the obvious example, Hitler was constantly replacing his ministers because he no longer trusted them or they no longer believed in victory.

Ministers could certainly do with more to them. The trick for them would be doing so while dealing with their usual over-sensitivity to anything un Politically correct ("let it go" I say, but that's another debate).

So I think it much more likely that they'll improve the Generals development in this way instead- which I think was hinted at in one of the dev diary threads.

Bottom line is some character development is great for immersion and enjoyment. This has been a growing trend in strategy games for some time now, think 4X space games and Total war.

 

[safe-keeper]

Never thought about this, but now that you say so, I support it wholeheartedly. At the very least vary their stats a little.

NO!! Dont't turn this game in "Crusader Kings 2"!!! I don't want to play with characters and i hate Crusader Kings because there charecters playing main role in gameplay.

"Neville Chamberlain, I have arranged for you to marry the sister of Herman Göring. This will strengthen our diplomatic relations!"

 

[safe-keeper]

Because some ministers have unique bonuses and maluses m ake the game like CK? :blink:

^^My sentiment exactly.

 

[illathid]

By tying the player to Hitler's folly and his inept cronies by forcing this by some loyalty system one would handicap one pretty much. And limit the player's options.

If the player guides Germany, the choice of leader's should be player's, not Hitler's. And even having Hitler would not be the first choice for many. I'd also argue against having a crazy Hitler as german national trait insofar as this would lock cabinet positions and high ranking officer positions in some predetermined rut. Also, this would mean that whenever any offensive is being planned, the AI Hitler would intervene, make you wait random amount of time and absolutely prevent any way of mobile defensive war.

Having a loyalty system would do give more choices, not limit them. If you pick only high loyalty ministers your nation will likely be suboptimal as you will be losing out on bonuses and getting penalties you otherwise would not be getting. If however you choose the optimal ministers for each position, you'll likely have ones with low loyalty which could result in a coup, again causing trouble for your nation (maybe open rebellion, big penalties to production or combat, etc.). As long as the system is designed so that one side isn't obviously better than the other, this will be a meaningful choice that could enhance gameplay.

 

[Dalwin]

No matter how much detail they might add to something like this it couldn't possibly go the way of CK. We are not covering centuries where you are worried not only about having an heir, but marrying him off so that your lineage will continue.

EDIT: it might be a fun change of pace (in single player only) to be stuck with a Chief of Staff who had the indecisive trait. The effect would be that on any given week each of your stacks would have a 20% chance that you couldn't issue new orders to them.

This trait would certainly be within the realm of history and realistic enough. Would it be fun other than in a perverse sense, I doubt it. We'd all turn off any system that gave the ministers that much personality.

 

[seattle]

No matter how much detail they might add to something like this it couldn't possibly go the way of CK. We are not covering centuries where you are worried not only about having an heir, but marrying him off so that your lineage will continue.

EDIT: it might be a fun change of pace (in single player only) to be stuck with a Chief of Staff who had the indecisive trait. The effect would be that on any given week each of your stacks would have a 20% chance that you couldn't issue new orders to them.

This trait would certainly be within the realm of history and realistic enough. Would it be fun other than in a perverse sense, I doubt it. We'd all turn off any system that gave the ministers that much personality.

Ah, the George McClellan trait! Add "need 5:1 numerical superiority to unlock attack order".